Michigan Helmet Laws - A Detailed Look Into a Newly Helmetless State

Discussion in 'The Perfect Line and Other Riding Myths' started by Anywhereness, Dec 9, 2012.

  1. Wraith Rider

    Wraith Rider Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2012
    Oddometer:
    1,604
    Location:
    Germany
    Obviously we have someone here who thinks motorcycling should be outlawed.

    In about 100,000 miles there was one foreign object impact that would have been able to cause me trouble if I was helmetless. But then that was at triple the speed than I would ride without a helmet. Also a hit to the body could as well lead to an accident, but there's no law for full armor.

    That's a contradiction in itself. Take a look at Bobby's figures about motorcyclist injuries and fatalities. No one in a sane state of mind could "choosing to ride" call "doing reasonable things to mitigate risk".
  2. Schlug

    Schlug JockeyfullofBourbon

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2006
    Oddometer:
    8,025
    Location:
    put something on and stay in that position.

    One, are you being intentionally thick or trying to use hyperbole to prove a(n incorrect) point? You know that's not what I'm trying to say. Yet, you typed those words anyway.

    Two, in this forum there are a lot of people who ride a lot of miles a year. You're statistics mean nothing. Lots of us have taken a whack to the head with a stone or other object thrown up.

    Most importantly, your logic is a miserable failure.

    HEAD INJURIES-- not injuries to the body-- are the most dangerous, most lethal sort of injury to a motorcycle rider-- to a skateboarder, a hockey player, a cyclist. Which is why helmets are the focus here and there.

    So here we have the facts, short and to the point:
    Motorcycle riding is a dangerous manner of getting around.
    There are some risks greater than others--including head injuries.
    We should always attempt, if we care about our families, our health, our financial solvency, our career, or just being able to watch the footie match with a beer in our hand, to reduce these risks as much as possible.

    To say, as you assert, that we can't remove all risk and therefore we shouldn't attempt to reduce a very clear, very dangerous, sometimes easily averted injury by wearing a helmet is absolute hog anus.

    Not all accidents are survivable, even with the best kit.
    But some, indeed most, are survivable.
    We must do what we can to survive those accidents with as little injury as possible.
    For the good of our loved ones, our personal health, and the civil society of which we are a part. (or not, depending on your locale)
  3. Fajita Dave

    Fajita Dave Been here awhile

    Joined:
    May 13, 2007
    Oddometer:
    717
    Location:
    Barboursville, VA
    +1000

    I can't imagine anyone who would avoid taking the 10 seconds to put on a helmet that drastically reduces the chance of a serious head injury in the event of an accident. Just so they can have a tiny taste of extra personal freedom. If you had the common sense to wear a helmet in the first place than a helmet law has no effect on your personal freedom!

    The human body can handle brutal punishment and still function reasonably well so its understandable that full gear is just an option. On the other hand, it doesn't take much of an impact to the head making you a dependent for life. After that you'll be nothing more than horrific emotional and financial baggage for your loved ones and anyone else you're involved with for the rest of you're life (and hopefully not theirs). All could have been avoided by just wearing a helmet..... If you don't understand why you need to wear a helmet than the government really does need to protect you from your own stupidity.

    Besides what good is an adventure if you can't survive the first fall since you weren't wearing a helmet? If you wanted to finish your trip around the world wouldn't it be smart to try and survive it first? Ya know like all of the survival gear you'd bring with you to start a fire, cook your food, gather clean water, avoid heatstroke / hypothermia, and hunt for your food if required.
  4. Wraith Rider

    Wraith Rider Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2012
    Oddometer:
    1,604
    Location:
    Germany
    Trying or not, you DO say it. Of course you never will admit it, because that would mean to face your own double standards.

    No. We can if we wish to. If we instead wish to accept a higher risk to increase our life quality that's fine as well. But again there are your double standards, telling us we must do what you think we have to while allowing the dangers you like to take yourself.
  5. Fidl2n

    Fidl2n Adventurer

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Oddometer:
    29
    There are enough so-called double standards to go around, as noted before. Unfortunately for the purist liberty lovers, there is no such thing as individual-only consequence in the case of a helmet law. We will never live in a country where we just leave folks to die on the road if not wearing a helmet (though strangely we do this very thing in other instances having to do with people like the homeless). Even if one were to further "incentivize" with insurance or further denial of coverage, it would all just continue to be paid by society, regardless. How many more homeless or impoverished do we want to keep. There is a huge gray area here. Not saying it's ideal (what is?). I just can't seem to get worked up about it in the face of so many other larger threats. It's wiser to pick your battles in the face of so many other attacks and threats to motorcycling and riders. I am for the idea of personal liberty in concept, but, like so many other concepts, the practical realities become unrealistic within the context of a larger "civilized" society.

    Set em on an ice flow? Sure, I'm game. Never happen.


    Blah, blah, blah, Tapatalk.
  6. PhilB

    PhilB Long timer

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2012
    Oddometer:
    1,331
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    Thanks.

    You are confusing helmets with helmet LAWS. I'm fully in favor of helmets and use them every time I ride. It is very likely that doing so has saved my life as well. That does NOT mean that I claim the right to dictate that others use them. You SHOULD "give a rat's ass" if ANYONE takes ANY liberty away from ANYONE ELSE. Otherwise, the liberties you do care about are not safe either.

    Most of those are illegitimate, and for the same reason. Yes, I'm serious. We are WAY over the line on nanny-state bullshit already.

    The reason some people objected to the Bill of Rights being included in the Constitution was the fear that people would misinterpret as the list of rights, and feel free to violate any rights not listed. hat's exactly why the 9th and 10th Amendments were added -- to try to make it clear that the rights explicitly stated were NOT to be taken as anything like a complete list -- they were only the few rights thought to be the most critical for keeping political freedom, for protecting people from the government. It appears that their concern was well founded, as even with that added clarity, a lot of people still somehow claim that if a right isn't listed then it isn't protected.

    The very meaning of the word "liberty" is that you have the right to do whatever you want, provided only that you respect the equal right of others to do the same.

    And I have lost all respect for courts, up to and including state and U.S. Supreme Courts, at abiding by the Constitution and protecting and respecting our rights and liberty. You'd get better results by flipping a coin.

    I absolutely agree there -- no one has the right to expect others to pay for his decisions, no one has the right to force some to pay for others. But that's a problem with the practice of forcing people to pay for others, and the answer is to stop doign that. It is NOT to violate yet more rights and freedoms in order to minimize the damage done by the previous violations.

    I'm all for this, as long as it is applied fairly across the board. No money for you if at the time of your accident you were driving drunk, on the phone, not wearing a seatbelt, speeding, have a headlight out, have bald tires, or in any other way contributed to the accident or the injuries received.

    PhilB
  7. PhilB

    PhilB Long timer

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2012
    Oddometer:
    1,331
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    :clap :clap :clap +1!

    +1 and nicely done. Of course he will fail to grasp your points entirely, but that's not your fault.

    Whaddyaknow -- I'm a freaking Nostradamus.

    Well, some of us are concerned not with JUST our own personal freedom, but have the integrity to care about the personal freedom of other people, even if those people make different choices than we would. Principles are good, and integrity is good, and being rational and consistent in one's own beliefs is good. More people should try these things.

    Another fine post he won't understand.

    PhilB
  8. DAKEZ

    DAKEZ Long timer

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2007
    Oddometer:
    19,768
    Location:
    Begin Op Zoom

    :clap Thank you so very much for making my point!!!


    Do you care to take it further and share with the class as to how many of those deaths were wearing helmets?

    How about the percentage of those 56,000 that were injured that were wearing helmets?

    Oh please do go on and show just how insignificant your squeaky wheel is in the big picture of what costs society money.

    Your sniveling like a little girl about a statistically insignificant cost angle is laughable. Tell us please once you get motorcycles banned, what is the next freedom squashing nonsense bandwagon going to be?

    Do share. You are a selfish little boy throwing a temper tantrum because other thinking adults want to be left alone. You think motorcycles are dangerous... They are not. It is the human at the controls of the bike that makes them dangerous.

    The crazy part is we are both in complete agreement that helmets work to protect riders from some unnecessary head injuries. Where we part ways is you feel the need to force others to comply with your belief and say the cost to others is significant when the truth says otherwise.

    You want to reduce cost? Focus of the 50% of the crashes that were impaired by alcohol. Focus on the 37% of collisions that are do to right of way violations from other road users. I am not talking about "Watch Out for Motorcycles" billboards. I blame the riders for not catering to how human vision works. Those billboards would do more if they read "Motorcycles Watch Out"

    If you want to lower costs focus on teaching riders how to be seen. Those that ride impaired deserve their fate.

    Helmet use is a grain of sand in a bucket full of waste and you sir are an arrogant freedom hating joke.

    p.s. How is your colon? :1drink
  9. randyo

    randyo Long timer

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2007
    Oddometer:
    2,034
    Location:
    Northern NewEngland
    Is this the same Center for Disease Control that doesn't recognize Chronic Lyme as a disease and tells me I'm cured cause I took doxycycline for 3 weeks

    Ya, I believe em :csm
  10. Schlug

    Schlug JockeyfullofBourbon

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2006
    Oddometer:
    8,025
    Location:
    put something on and stay in that position.

    Now I know you're just being thick. Intentional or not. I have never suggested outlawing motorcycles much less hinted at it. In fact I have written a goddamn thesis about how, despite the dangers, we (especially me) continue to ride them while trying reduce the dangers the best we can. That includes training, gear, motorcycle maintenance, and riding motorcycle like a professional.

    This does nothing to limit the enjoyment of motorcycling, as FajitaDave eloquently said, you can't finish your ride, enjoy your adventure and drink fully from the well of life with an otherwise easily avoided closed head injury suffered on the first day of the trip.


    Where are the double standards? There are no double standards. Your argument-- which, sir, you must respectfully let go as you mature in your thinking-- is pure hogshyte.

    We're building a new house and we cannot afford to sod the lawn. According to you we needn't bother putting the roof on, either. The logic is horrible.

    When engaging in an undisputably dangerous activity you have the obligation as a family member, as a productive member of society to mitigate those risks that can be easily mitigated.

    That is my position. There are no one-way concessions included in it.

    Futhermore, perhaps you forgot that people in Michigan have to pay that MCCA fee which went UP the year that helmets were no longer required. Anyone who says that the cost of catastrophic hear injuries isn't a burden shared by the rest of the public can stop saying that now as it is concretely shown by that fact.

    Imagine you want to plate and insure you WR450X. No comprehensive, no theft. You'll be riding it on roads just to link up trailheads. It might cost you 400 dollars for the season-- except that you have to add 175 additional dollars for the MCCA since you will be on the roads and you know, all of us share the burden for those catastrophic accidents.
  11. Schlug

    Schlug JockeyfullofBourbon

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2006
    Oddometer:
    8,025
    Location:
    put something on and stay in that position.
    So this is the level of discourse you want to share: calling names, mixing metaphors in an embarassing fashion and still refusing to come to grips with the wickedly confusing and monumentally challenging your/you're conondrum?

    You refuse to address the salient points the issues put forth and instead prefer to fling poo. That is the sort of exchange employed by chimps.

    So, if you want to continue any sort of discussion with me, you need to tighten up both your logic and your manner of dialogue or you will be disinvited from the conversation. This is not jomomma, sir.

    For the record, I wrote about a fellow who crashed Fourth of July without his helmet and his current status and the impact on his wife, his family, his union, etc. That one wreck is more than enough to consider reinstating that law. It has cost the public an amazing amount of money and his family an amazing amount of pain and his union was nearly brought to its knees over this wreck because he had a crash on a two lane road at 45 mph with no helmet and sustained a closed head injury. Because there's no law and he couldn't be arsed to take 10 seconds to clip on his helmet.
  12. Schlug

    Schlug JockeyfullofBourbon

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2006
    Oddometer:
    8,025
    Location:
    put something on and stay in that position.

    OSHA regs are illegitimate?

    You have made your position (somewhere orbiting neptune, I think) completely clear.

    Thank you for your participation.

    I made an assertion which you ignored (probably while smearing yourself with peanut butter and howling at the moon) that anyone not wearing a helmet and sustaining a head injury would receive no money from the State. Therefore we would be following your logic that his 'liberty' of not protecting himself in a very easy, simple way from a serious risk would not 'disrespect' the rights of those forced to pay the MCCA.

    Once their private insurance was used up, they were unplugged and either used as organ donors or cadavers for the state med schools. I fhey were on some sort of government program or had no insurance, organs would be harvested immediately. Or perhaps the members of ABATE would gather together and pay for the care needed.

    Deal?

    (sorry about the peanut butter comment-- just taking the piss, sir. No disrespect intended)
  13. ttpete

    ttpete Rectum Non Bustibus

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Oddometer:
    6,642
    Location:
    Dearborn, MI
    There's no cause-and-effect there. At least not that you can prove. You might start by going to the MCCA website and familiarizing yourself with it. Michigan has no-fault insurance for everything EXCEPT motorcycles. MCCA only pays off if the motorcyclist has contact with a four or more wheeled vehicle. It doesn't cover single or multiple motorcycle accidents that don't involve the mentioned vehicles.

    MCCA rates are keyed to the amount paid out the previous year, and have, with one exception, risen EVERY year. They look at total costs and don't categorize anything.

    It sucks because motorcyclists are paying full price for half the coverage.
  14. farmerstu

    farmerstu Been here awhile

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2011
    Oddometer:
    586
    Location:
    Minnesota west central
    huh, what bobbysands is wrong? you mean mr. thesis didn't properly vett his sources? why, if that's true it means he's just a blowhard dink. whoda thought.
  15. Butters

    Butters Kwyjibo

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2008
    Oddometer:
    2,902
    Location:
    NoVA
    Maybe we can all tone down the rhetoric and discuss this civilly?

    Helmet laws are Constitutional, but that doesn't mean they are good. And we can all have logical reasons why we prefer one law, or lack thereof, over another.

    I don't see that you have addressed any of my issues with helmet laws, they are two fold:

    Can you show helmetless riders cost society more money than helmeted ones? I don't mean assumptions since they are protective that they save money, but actual numbers showing accidents by helmetless riders cost society more than accidents by helmeted riders (lack of insurance being an entirely separate issue). Your example is hardly exclusive to helmetless riders. The fact that you have shown how a helmetless riders' accident can cost society money, you have not shown how that is any worse than the same accident by a helmeted rider.

    -- Now lets assume you can even show that (which nobody has done so far). What is a reasonable cost per resident to pay for the personal freedom of riding how they wish? Your answer may be $0.00, that society shouldn't bear a cost for such a silly freedom. Nothing wrong with that, but that is your OPINION. A reasonable person may believe society should be willing to pay $XX.XX for that freedom. That would also be their opinion. Clearly, many people here are willing to pay for that freedom even if we never plan to use it.

    -- The second issue that arises is that if your justification for the state to enact a law is the cost to society, you have started sliding down a slippery slope. Here's where many of the previous posters took issue with your posts. If cost to society is the justification, then the same justification could/should be used to prohibit riding motorcycles. By your own post, you have shown they are more dangerous than cars. But you have drawn your own line (opinion) at a helmet law, rather than a prohibition of motorcycling. But if I were to enact a motorcycle ban, I would simply use your logic as justification. I guess that logic would be foolproof, no?

    I don't intend to say any of this disrespectfully. I am more than happy to re-visit my logic if you can show where it is flawed.
  16. Schlug

    Schlug JockeyfullofBourbon

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2006
    Oddometer:
    8,025
    Location:
    put something on and stay in that position.
    Yeah, between 2010-2011 it went up $1.91

    The people in that state have to cover the victims of catastrophic accidents. Because that state has no limit on policies:

    The MCCA is necessary in Michigan because insurance policies issued to drivers in the state are unlimited in the amount of coverage they provide.

    So every motorcycle crash victim without a helmet who sustains an otherwise avoidable head injury will be taken care of by the other people in the state, and depending how much was paid out the year before that amount will increase. It's an incredibly selfish move and has nothing to do with personal freedom.

    These fact are irrefutable.

    Furthermore, of the 10's of assertion having been made in the last couple days, THAT's the one upon which all others rest?

    Nice name calling as well. Well, when you got nothing else in the rucksack...
  17. Schlug

    Schlug JockeyfullofBourbon

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2006
    Oddometer:
    8,025
    Location:
    put something on and stay in that position.

    Show me where I was being uncivil in that quote and an apology will be forthcoming. I'm not sure what you mean by rhetoric but it was one my strong suits. I hope it still is.

    I don't understand. You want me to prove to you that a fellow riding a motorbike without a helmet who sustains an otherwise avoidable head injury costs the general public money?

    Honestly? I think you just want me to spend time digging up statistics. Why did I spend time writing about that fellow who crashed the fourth of July?

    Who do think will pay for his care, his childrens social security, and the mountain of medical bill already generated?

    The line is drawn by the courts, which have stated that there will be a weighing of restrictions/regulations vs. the infringement of the rights of the public.

    the image of a slippery slope is one commonly thrown out by those who dislike a regulation or rule or forced registration. But more often than not it's a complete myth.

    The courts will alway judge the good of the many vs. the personal rights of the individual. In which case, putting a ban on all motorcycle riding next a law requiring the use of a helmet or the use of a seatbelt is a meaningless parlour game. The two aren't even close in amount of infringement and trying to make that assertion is waste of time.

    Mainly, because any reasonable fellow would see, if he weren't blinded by-- I don't know what makes this so hard to understand since every other industrialised nation has a helmet law-- some twisted, mutated, mangled idea of liberty.

    I also want to point out that I mentioned emotiona distress to his children and his wife, but you haven't included that at all. For people who speak about 'liberty' also talk at other times about personal responsibility. Yet in this case, the incredibly selfish act of not wearing a helmet is met with a hearty pat on the back. It is bewildering.
  18. B.Curvin

    B.Curvin Feral Chia tamer

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2004
    Oddometer:
    2,816
    Location:
    Left of the dial. Canton, NC
    -end thread-



    Damn. I added your name at the end so that when I quote it I give proper credit.

    :clap :clap :clap :clap
  19. RogerWilco

    RogerWilco Been here awhile

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2011
    Oddometer:
    368
    Sir, you can most easily mitigate much risk by simply not riding dangerous motorcyles, period. To state that you do "what can easily be done to mitigate the risk" of riding motorcycles is to ignore the fact that I, along with the many taxpayers who will have to support you and your family after you are injured or killed while riding, recognize that the easiest thing that can be done is to simply prevent you from riding this most dangerous of conveyances.
    You seen to think it is okay to mandate that others be forced to abide by that which YOU deem resonable: wearing helmets.
    You seem to ignor that there are others who would mandate that which is reasonable to THEM: that YOU not be allowed to ride a dangerous motorcycle, when you could simply utilize an option that THEY feel is quick, easy and reasonable: automobiles.
  20. B.Curvin

    B.Curvin Feral Chia tamer

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2004
    Oddometer:
    2,816
    Location:
    Left of the dial. Canton, NC
    :clap :clap

    (pssst. I've determined he's far too thick, self-righteous and arrogant to grasp it.)


    BTW, I always wear a full face helmet (usually Arai), and I think it is stupid not to, but I do not support helmet laws.